Los Angeles is now the flashpoint in a statewide fight over whether California’s new arts-money law is protecting classrooms—or giving school districts a cleaner way to reshuffle the books. Former LAUSD Superintendent Austin Beutner is urging lawmakers to stop AB 2440, warning the measure could weaken the voter-approved Proposition 28 guardrails just as his lawsuit accuses LAUSD of diverting the money.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Beutner sent a letter Tuesday to Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, the Torrance Democrat who authored the bill. Muratsuchi says AB 2440 is a good-faith attempt to resolve confusion that has left districts unsure how to spend Proposition 28 funds without violating the law.
What AB 2440 Would Change
The current California Legislature bill text would allow local educational agencies to pool Proposition 28 dollars across school sites, provided spending remains proportional to each site’s allocation and follows the school’s approved expenditure plan.
The bill would also create a new test for the law’s central supplement-not-supplant requirement. Districts would compare current-year arts spending, excluding Proposition 28 dollars, with a prior-year baseline adjusted for funding sources that have expired, been reduced, or disappeared—including some private, parent-raised, state, or federal money.
A Senate committee analysis says the measure would expand reporting requirements, require districts to disclose school-site spending plans and waivers, and broaden the definition of allowable arts education expenses to include curriculum, instructional materials, and professional development. Supporters argue those changes could unlock money that schools have struggled to use.
Why Beutner Sees A Threat
Beutner helped write Proposition 28 and financially backed its 2022 campaign, which secured ongoing funding equal to 1% of the state’s Proposition 98 education funding. In a 2025 Los Angeles Times report, his lawsuit against LAUSD alleged that 37 elementary schools had the same or less money for arts instruction after Proposition 28 funds arrived.
The lawsuit also cited an internal district memo acknowledging that Proposition 28 money replaced existing funding for 167 of 227 elementary arts instructors during the 2023-24 school year. LAUSD has denied wrongdoing, saying its overall arts spending increased and that its use of the funds complied with state guidance.
LAUSD’s Own Rules Mirror The Dispute
LAUSD’s Proposition 28 guidance says at least 80% of the money must go toward certificated or classified employees providing arts instruction, while the remainder can support professional development, supplies, materials, and arts partnerships. The district document also says the funds must supplement, not supplant, existing arts instruction and that allocations are based on enrollment and the number of economically disadvantaged pupils.
That is the heart of the argument: Beutner says a new accounting formula could bless the very kind of substitution Proposition 28 was designed to prevent, while school officials and supporters say districts need a workable baseline when temporary grants or private fundraising vanish. The disagreement is less about whether arts education matters than about which spreadsheet gets to define an expansion.
The Bill’s Sacramento Path
AB 2440 passed the Assembly 74-0 in May, then cleared the Senate Education Committee before landing on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. The official bill status shows it remains active and still needs Senate approval before it can reach Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The stakes stretch far beyond Los Angeles. A Legislative Analyst’s Office overview says Proposition 28 funding grew from roughly $900 million in 2023-24 to nearly $1.1 billion in 2025-26, meaning a technical change in the rules could shape arts classrooms across California for years.
The Legal Question Behind The Budget Fight
Current law requires districts to certify that Proposition 28 dollars increase arts funding rather than replace existing support, and it subjects the spending to annual reporting and audits. AB 2440 does not erase that language, but it would give districts a statutory method for deciding when their non-Proposition 28 spending is high enough to satisfy it—precisely the change Beutner says could turn a disputed past practice into legal compliance.
.jpg){kind=link}